The People of the State of New York v Tyler R. Benton
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law and procedure—Antommarchi rights (defendant’s right to be present at material stages), sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.
After a jury acquitted defendant of first-degree rape but convicted him of sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, the court denied a motion to set aside the verdict and imposed concurrent six-year probationary sentences, admitting evidence of defendant’s firing and granting the People’s Sandoval request on two uncharged incidents.
The judgment of conviction was reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial on counts 2 (sexual abuse in the second degree) and 3 (endangering the welfare of a child).
Defendant was excluded from a material in‑chambers evidentiary conference without a valid Antommarchi waiver, violating Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 260.20 [right of a defendant to be present at trial]. Counsel’s after‑the‑fact statement (“I can waive his appearance”) did not establish a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver; the court never advised defendant of the right; and an off‑the‑record, blanket waiver—premised in part on defendant’s autism—was invalid.
Background
A 19‑year‑old defendant was accused of engaging in sexual conduct with a 12‑year‑old in a family locker room at the Fulton County Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA). He was indicted for first‑degree rape, second‑degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. At trial, the complainant testified that defendant kissed her breasts, performed oral sex, touched her vagina with his hand, and attempted penile penetration. The jury acquitted defendant of rape but convicted him of sexual abuse in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.60[2] [subjecting a person under 14 to sexual contact]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10[1] [knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to a child under 17]).
Lower Court Decision
County Court denied defendant’s CPL 330.30(1) motion [motion to set aside the verdict based on any ground appearing in the record], admitted testimony that defendant was fired from the YMCA after the incident, granted the People’s Sandoval application to question defendant about two uncharged incidents (bathroom cell phone recording and conduct while a lifeguard), and declined to issue a special ‘interested witness’ charge specific to the complainant and her family, opting instead for a general credibility instruction. The court imposed concurrent six‑year probationary terms.
Appellate Division Reversal
The court held the verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence regarding sexual abuse and endangering, but reversed for an Antommarchi violation. A pretrial in‑chambers conference on the admissibility of testimony about defendant’s firing—where defendant’s personal knowledge could have materially assisted counsel—was a material stage, and defendant’s absence violated CPL 260.20 [defendant’s right to be present at trial]. No valid waiver occurred: the trial court never advised defendant of his Antommarchi rights; counsel’s statement, ‘I can waive his appearance,’ came only after the ruling and lacked any basis showing a knowing and voluntary waiver; and any off‑the‑record, blanket waiver was facially deficient, particularly one premised on defendant’s autism. For guidance on retrial, the court found the Sandoval ruling an abuse of discretion because the prejudicial effect of the two uncharged incidents far outweighed any probative value; however, it upheld the general ‘interested witness’ instruction as sufficient given the exploration of the family’s civil suit at trial. The matter was remitted for a new trial on counts 2 and 3.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that Antommarchi rights require the defendant’s presence at material stages—such as evidentiary conferences where the defendant’s knowledge can aid advocacy—unless there is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver placed on the record. Counsel’s post hoc or off‑the‑record waivers are inadequate, and courts should not presume a defendant’s inability to contribute based on disability. It also cautions trial courts on Sandoval balancing where uncharged acts carry high prejudice and limited probative value.
A conviction was reversed because the defendant was excluded from a material in‑chambers evidentiary conference without a valid, on‑the‑record Antommarchi waiver; on remand, the court must exclude the prejudicial uncharged‑acts Sandoval evidence and may rely on a general credibility charge rather than labeling specific witnesses as ‘interested.’